This review is in response to the author's interests in both music
education and theological studies. In preparation for this paper
articles were sought dealing with the role of sacred music in a
secular classroom. Issues related to diverse sacred music and the
appropriateness of its use with regards to the practitioners of the
religion were of great interest. Unfortunately, the academic articles
that were found only explored multicultural religious issues through
the lense of our dominent religious paradigm, Christianity. Finally,
the article by Iris M. Yob, Religious Music and Multicultural
Education, was chosen because it referenced authors that could be
used for future resources.

Yob explored several issues regarding religion and multicultural
education. She emphasized the need for religious musical study, the
process for finding appropriate multicultural materials and the
importance of discourse surrounding the exploration of these
materials and ideas. She supports religious, multicultural, musical
study by emphasizing its effect on "the personal (an appreciation of
one's own cultural heritage), the social (learning to live
harmoniously with people of different faiths), and the political
(participation in a democracy that is characterized by religious
freedom)" (p. 71).

Religion, Art and Culture

Yob contends that art is a natural expression of religion. She
illustrates this through a short list of religious, artistic
activities by Australian aborigines, Jews, Christians, Muslims,
Hindus and Buddhists. She then notes how some religious prohibitions
have forbade certain artistic activities. This superficial survey is
then followed by an in depth exploration of religious art by several
scholars and artists including Frederick Menelson, William James,
Horace Bushnell and Paul Tillich. It is interesting that these four
White, Euro-centric men were the extent of her sources for religious
expressions of art. This is not to diminish their insight, for each
has a unique aesthetic perspective.

Mendelson's quotes are reminiscent of the Romantic Expressionism
of his time. James was described as tending to "depreciate the
cognitive value of religious symbols" (p. 73) while emphasizing their
psychological strength. Bushnell's bias and Yob's analysis were more
Christian specific by relating the poetic expression of the "Word"
(ibid). Yob never explains her use of the Word leaving the assumptive
impression that this is a reference to the New Testament. Tillich's
existentialist views are discussed. Particularly the notion that all
art is an extension of the "ultimate concern," or of "religious
(broadly defined) self understanding" (ibid).

Materials

Yob uses Tillich as a reference on how to choose cultural
materials for educational application. Tillich advocates the use of
"good" (p. 74) music as the most significant representation of a
culture. Good music supposedly translates the depth of a religious
belief. The converse is that "bad" (ibid) popular music is less
penetrating and therefore less representative of religious/cultural
identity. However, Yob points out, through Cobb (ibid), that the
products of a popular culture also illustrate the ultimate concerns
of its religious beliefs and therefore should be used in an
exploration of that culture. Yob concludes that when choosing
materials educators need to make judgments about the worth of the
cultural content. She also states that the "cultural style" (ibid)
needs to be broad and that material should contain a notion of
ultimate concern.

Yob uses one example of religious music, Bach's St John Passion,
to illustrate the necessity for making careful judgments about
choosing materials. In her example Jewish students at Swarthmore
College refused to perform the Bach because of perceived
anti-Semitism in the text. She contends that the piece should be used
because educators can not hide from divisive issues: "...to avoid
dissent may amount to losing the opportunity to discover what
cultural difference can really mean" (p.78). However, Yob ignores
that it was not the choral director that raised the issue of
anti-Semitism for cultural discussion. In fact, her defense is that
the "...director could not be reasonably expected to know beforehand
what his students would do..." (ibid). This seems to contradict her
call for a "greater tolerance of religious ideas and a deeper
understanding of others' positions" (p.74). What of the Jewish
students' position? Why should this professor of higher education be
exempt from understanding the texts of his materials? Once the text
and perspectives are clear is it still "appropriate" (p.76) to
continue with this material?

Discourse

Yob refers to Horace Mann regarding the treatment of controversial
issues. Her summary of one Mann position is to "take a middle course"
(p. 77) that is neither consumed by, nor devoid of religious
discussion. When invoking theological references Yob supports
Noddings' notion of "life-affirming inquiry" (p.78). Overall, Yob
appears to prefer the discussion of dissenting views and not the
"retreat-avoidance" (ibid) approach of Mann-Farber.

The question returns now to the Swarthmore/Bach issue. If through
a dissenting discussion information is revealed about distasteful
content should the original belief, or action, be continually
supported? Yob acknowledges that the content of John refers to Jews
as "a common enemy" (p.76). The students apparently, vigorously
expressed their discomfort with the content of this particular piece.
Is it then ethical, or republican, to continue with mandated
participation?

The ethical test requires quantifying a benefit to the greatest
number of people while preserving an individual's ability to freely
choose. If a majority of citizens are Christian then it may benefit
them to mandate Christian content. However, if a minority refuses to
participate it would be unethical to force compliance. Likewise, a
democracy, in a crude definition, is majority rule while a republic
preserves the rights of individuals over the will of the majority
(e.g. nine people can not vote to steal from one person). Yob quotes
Mann's insightful words to "Teach those 'articles in the creed of
republicanism'" (p. 77).

It seems then that discourse is beneficial, but the application of
some materials can be harmful. To elaborate on this perspective
examine the use of other religious establishments in a similar
setting. Should students be taught meditative visualization and Hindu
mantras in order to appreciate Indian culture? If popular culture
contains elements of the "ultimate concern," and a Satanist is
concerned with self indulgence, should students be encouraged to
transcribe and recite lyrics to Ronny James Dio? Djimbe drumming is
used in Caribbean Santeria to communicate with the spirits of the
dead. Should students be taught these rhythms and chants to invoke
their grandparents for an assembly?

All of these examples contain significant, religious, cultural
content concerned with the ultimate. All of these examples would be
controversial and promote inquiry and discussion. Are these then
appropriate for use in a pre, elementary, secondary or post-secondary
classroom?

This exploration is further muddled by the postponed explanation
that Swarthmore is a private, not a public institution (p.76). Prior
to this revelation Yob includes the "counterbalanced" (ibid) views of
the First Amendment's establishment and free exercise clauses. Still,
she does not acknowledge how the establishment clause is relevant to
the role of public educators in the light of their salaries coming
directly and indirectly from Congress. Her exact quote from p. 75
states that "it is not clear why "religious content" should be
downplayed or even excluded from consideration...". Yet, if a
government employee, while on the job, espouses, and encourages
others to believe, that Jesus was the Christ it seems that they are
establishing a religion. Would Yob be equally supportive of
establishing the religious content of a Wiccan coven or using a
Lakota song that speaks directly to the Creator, acknowledging no
intermediaries or saviors?

Conclusion

Religion and the exploration of the unseen do permeate all aspects
of a society through its arts. Sometimes the ultimate concern appears
in the overt, concrete statement of a name, or the sculpting of an
image. Other times it is transparent like a selfish lyric or an
obscene gesture. In every case it is ultimately the responsibility of
the individual to choose their expression and modality. Sometimes
this choice takes the form of non-participation. When a government,
or its agents, attempt to coerce or compel participation then there
is no longer free exercise; instead there is tyranny. It is a
powerful and beautiful scene when people gather to marvel at the
diversity of beliefs. However, if one of these people is forced to
endure offensive words and actions then the scene is transformed into
a binding nightmare.

Schools are a place of both inquiry and protection. They inspire
us to explore creation while sheltering us from inappropriate
confrontations. If we, as teachers, choose to use this sacred trust
for the exploration of religion we need to use the utmost respect to
all personal, social and political concerns, for the Great Mystery is
revealed to each of us individually.